Church to build 32-story apartment building in Philadelphia?


NeuroTypical
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hey--I proclaim that this stimulus will create or save eighty-five kazillion jobs, so THERE!!!

On a more serious note--I agree that this seems slightly out of character for the Church. And I sincerely wonder if developing a tax-generating property was necessary to grease the wheels on the temple project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Or how about this... We have a world wide church... Lots of buildings.. lots of bills... lots of missionary infrastructure... All supported by the tithes of the Church. And while we have some wealthy tithe payers most are probably closer to the widow and her mite.

The church leaders might simply be seeing that the growth that they want is out stripping tithe they would expect growth to bring in. Thus they see the need to invest to fund the growth they are wanting to have.

If this is true then it totally reverses the standard argument people have against church business ventures

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*sigh* This makes me so uncomfortable. :( WHY is so much money being put into building projects? Why not build a hospital, or some homeless shelters? Yes, I KNOW the church also does humanitarian stuff too, but it seems like a WHOLE lot more $$ is going into NON-humanitarian stuff, and I don't care if it's my tithing money or not, I'd much rather see more $$ going into helping the poor and needy, and the poor and needy don't need shiny new high-rises.

Ever since I walked through the new mall in Salt Lake with "Your Sex Takes Me to Paradise" blaring over the sound system, the business side of the church has made me feel increasingly uncomfortable.

In many ways I could understand not building hospitals. Think of the insurance required. Having to deal with insurance companies, potential law suits etc. I think it would be something the church would shy away from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay my research peeps and random information generators...

Is there precedent in other religions for similar building projects?

Not the mall, there's all kinds of that, but residences?

Specifically this kind if high end sort?

(Meaning ignoring habitat for humanity, halfway houses, etc.).

Let's also ignore all of the Catholic Villas, manses, and castles, etc., that house clergy, esp as most of those are ancient.

Last 100 years, only.

I'm wondering about precedent for public and govt. reaction.

Which is the part that makes me nervous.

If it's "Sure, the Baptisits own 4 blocks in New Orleans, the Catholic Church did a high rise in Boston, etc." I'd breathe a lot easier.

I'm fairly sure there's precedent somewhere.

But I'm not sure where to look.

Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One problem with reporting publicly all the money spent on humanitarian efforts is that it takes on the appearance of patting ourselves on the back and doing our alms before men. When there are articles of this nature written in the Des News or KSl, the nitpickers and naysayers are all over it saying "the Church is too proud for reporting it."

Dinged if you do and dinged if you don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One problem with reporting publicly all the money spent on humanitarian efforts is that it takes on the appearance of patting ourselves on the back and doing our alms before men. When there are articles of this nature written in the Des News or KSl, the nitpickers and naysayers are all over it saying "the Church is too proud for reporting it."

Dinged if you do and dinged if you don't.

Totally agree with that. I've seen that plenty enough times just in discussions here on this site and others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay my research peeps and random information generators...

I'm fairly sure there's precedent somewhere.

But I'm not sure where to look.

I have not been able to find any precedents on this kind of scale. Sure I was able to find a handful minor residential constructions/renovations done by other churches, but those projects seems to involve creating only a handful rental units in already existing buildings, like this one:

Residential Real Estate - Church Rents Out a Redone Building - NYTimes.com

The kind of large residential building projects we see being planned in Philly seems to be unique to the LDS church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The kind of large residential building projects we see being planned in Philly seems to be unique to the LDS church.

That's just silly.

Almost half of the entire country of the Philippines was owned by the Catholic Church until 1932. That's not more than 100 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And let's not forget the epic failed Tower in Altamonte Springs that you pass by travelling between Orlando and Daytona. Owned by this Evangelist Christian Church that does their evangelization through TV.

That 2012 article I linked says it will be completed in 14 months. Hah! It's already 2014 and that Tower still stands - empty. Without glass coverings on several floors. Waiting for a hurricane to blow it away. That tower was built before I had my kids. My oldest son is 12 now!

At least LDS real estate ventures are financially sound.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think they'd own all that property and not generate income - including building residential properties - with it?

Let us go back to Quin's original question.

Okay my research peeps and random information generators...

Is there precedent in other religions for similar building projects?

Not the mall, there's all kinds of that, but residences?

Specifically this kind if high end sort?

(Meaning ignoring habitat for humanity, halfway houses, etc.).

Let's also ignore all of the Catholic Villas, manses, and castles, etc., that house clergy, esp as most of those are ancient.

Last 100 years, only.

He asked for examples of similar high end residential building projects during the last 100 years.

The land ownership of the Catholic church in the Philippines seems rather irrelevant to the actual question asked, don't you think? BTW, the land ownership doesn't seem to be as high as you implied. It seems like different Catholic orders owned approximate 10% of the existing agricultural lands in Philippines at the beginning of the American Colonial rule. This majority of these landholding was purchased by the U.S. Civil Administration in 1904 as a part of a land reform

Land reform in the Philippines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Church & State in the Philippines during the Spanish Colonial Period | A Sourcebook

I'm sure that the Catholic church as a land owner made money from its tenants. It is, however, not applicable to the question at hand. Quin asked specifically for examples of similar high end residential building project during the last 100 years. Can you agree on that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And let's not forget the epic failed Tower in Altamonte Springs that you pass by travelling between Orlando and Daytona. Owned by this Evangelist Christian Church that does their evangelization through TV.

WACX (Super Channel 55), while a Christian broadcasting channel, is a privately owned business and not a church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also don't really understand it. What about Kirkland, Navuoo, Salt Lake, Rexburg, Laie? Seems like we have a whole history of investing in infrastructure. The Church is now the largest private land owner in my State (Florida) and rather then concern it actually brings me comfort. I don't see how this Church can grow any larger without making smart decisions financially.

Who's getting rich off all this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an attractive building and the vacancy rate in Philly is only around 4% so it's not a bad investment. With that said there are a few questions that people on the outside would have. IDK, .maybe some members have them, too?

1. Will the project displace those who have lower incomes/housing costs? In Chicago we have seen upscale developments replace lower income housing. This has revitalized neighborhoods, but it has displaced the working poor who struggle to find more affordable housing by driving up prices. Does the good in revitalizing the neighborhood outweigh the risks of displacing people who currently live in the area?

2. Will the retail development displace small local businesses who have benefited from lower rents? Will chain stores located in the retail spaces drive mom & pops out of business- kind of a Wal-Mart effect?

3.What is the purpose for having income producing properties? Many people are uncomfortable with churches acquiring wealth. Many people see a church's role as providing for spiritual needs and focusing on what's eternal. To some it may seem like serving mammon.

4. Is there enough transparency to ensure church funds are not used for income generating interests?

Each individual/organization/church is accountable before God for their actions, but when churches enter into profit making businesses, people do tend to ask questions. This is why there has been some media scrutiny. Personally, I don't think churches should be in the business of making money, but that is just my personal opinion and I don't think less of the LDS because of their business practices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also don't really understand it. What about Kirkland, Navuoo, Salt Lake, Rexburg, Laie? Seems like we have a whole history of investing in infrastructure. The Church is now the largest private land owner in my State (Florida) and rather then concern it actually brings me comfort. I don't see how this Church can grow any larger without making smart decisions financially.

Who's getting rich off all this?

Kirtland.

It is an attractive building and the vacancy rate in Philly is only around 4% so it's not a bad investment. With that said there are a few questions that people on the outside would have. IDK, .maybe some members have them, too?

1. Will the project displace those who have lower incomes/housing costs? In Chicago we have seen upscale developments replace lower income housing. This has revitalized neighborhoods, but it has displaced the working poor who struggle to find more affordable housing by driving up prices. Does the good in revitalizing the neighborhood outweigh the risks of displacing people who currently live in the area?

2. Will the retail development displace small local businesses who have benefited from lower rents? Will chain stores located in the retail spaces drive mom & pops out of business- kind of a Wal-Mart effect?

These are two big concerns that I have as well. They're actually probably my only concerns about this particular venture.

3.What is the purpose for having income producing properties? Many people are uncomfortable with churches acquiring wealth. Many people see a church's role as providing for spiritual needs and focusing on what's eternal. To some it may seem like serving mammon.

This one doesn't both me too much, because I know that the LDS Church has a commercial/business arm separate from the affairs of religion and faith. I do understand, though, that it's a hard distinction for some people to make.

4. Is there enough transparency to ensure church funds are not used for income generating interests?

This isn't something that bothers me, though maybe it should. I trust that the people that have been placed in decision-making positions for these matters are careful stewards over the funds they've been given for development. I trust that the Church is being studious and dutiful in keeping things separate enough. I have no personal knowledge of it, but I trust it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given what I understand of Philly politics, I think it would be right in character for the city fathers to say "nice little temple you're building there. It'd be a shame if anything happened to all your construction permits.

I don't doubt it. I lived in Philly for 10 years. Nothing gets done without a payoff in some way, it''s just that some pay offs are disguised as legal activities. The unions are awful. It's like dealing with the mob. In fact, you're probably better off dealing with the mob.

You couldn't pay me to live here. Yes, it's in a nicer part of Center City, but you've still got garbage surrounding you.

I was confused when I saw this story about a week ago. I think that doing some urban revitalization was probably part of the deal for the temple grounds, but it seems a little much. 32 stories? As someone stated previously, ain't no poor people gonna live there. I don't mind the Church making money, but this just strikes me differently than building a shopping mall. On the other hand - has anyone looked at the condo prices at the mall? Not exactly for the middle class LDS with 4 kids.

I'm venturing into bleeding heart territory here, but a retail area with shops in a variety of price ranges makes more sense to me as a Church project. Building high rise condos on top of them, not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Will the project displace those who have lower incomes/housing costs? In Chicago we have seen upscale developments replace lower income housing. This has revitalized neighborhoods, but it has displaced the working poor who struggle to find more affordable housing by driving up prices. Does the good in revitalizing the neighborhood outweigh the risks of displacing people who currently live in the area?

The article says that the complex is going up on a currently vacant lot. Now, if you're asking whether a general raising of the living standard in the area is going to drive out people who can't afford to live there--I suppose it will, unless it provides them with a job or inspires them to make the lifestyle changes that will allow them to remain. But surely you're not implying that society has some kind of moral responsibility to not rehabilitate slums, or to leave vacant urban land undeveloped?

2. Will the retail development displace small local businesses who have benefited from lower rents? Will chain stores located in the retail spaces drive mom & pops out of business- kind of a Wal-Mart effect?

Again, vacant lot--no one's being physically "displaced". If you're arguing about displacement in the neighborhood generally--isn't that basically an argument against the opening of any new business anywhere?

3.What is the purpose for having income producing properties?

To generate the resources that will pay the Church's property tax, once this nation's liberal wing gets its way? :whistling::itwasntme:

4. Is there enough transparency to ensure church funds are not used for income generating interests?

Do we think the Church leadership is misleading us?

And, even if the Church comes out and says "yes, effective next year, we're going to invest 10% of our tithing receipts"--what's wrong with that, so long as those investments actually do generate a return?

Personally, I don't think churches should be in the business of making money, but that is just my personal opinion and I don't think less of the LDS because of their business practices.

Well, it depends on what they do with that money. If they pour the profits back into the Church's core mission, I don't see any problem.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To generate the resources that will pay the Church's property tax, once this nation's liberal wing gets its way? :whistling::itwasntme:

There is a lot of noise in that direction.

Several churches do have money-making ventures besides the LDS. Some have publishing houses. Some rent steeple space for cell phone towers. We are a bit different. We only get funds from free-will offerings. We won't even have a bake sale or car wash. That said, I don't think making money is a sin- unless it leads to sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, vacant lot--no one's being physically "displaced". If you're arguing about displacement in the neighborhood generally--isn't that basically an argument against the opening of any new business anywhere?

Additionally -

1) If the new store is high end and the original store is low end it is unlikely to interfere with the market covered by the local Mom and Pop's Grocery or what have you. That is to say, a $250 a haircut boutique does not steal Supercuts' customers, the overlap on the market is negligible.

2) If the store's market is the same, or has sufficient overlap, as the local Mom and Pop store's and they out-compete them then the new store is providing better value than the local Mom and Pop as determined by the market. A new store doesn't just magically gain market share, it does so by convincing customers it is the better alternative (either objectively or as a value judgement of the market).

If the locals determine that the new place is the superior value who am I to insist they are wrong simply because it is newer, or bigger, than the Mom and Pop?

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes new businesses come and under cut the mom & pop's prices to drive them out of business. Once the mom & pop is gone they raise their prices, but because the mom and pop is gone, the consumers have no choice about where to shop and the person that used to be a business owner is reduced to being a Wal-Mart greeter.

We have many mid-western towns that are essentially ghost towns with a Wal-mart on the outskirts because of this. We lose the local flavor and uniqueness of communities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share